OFBiz in Canada?
Locked
12345
12345
 
|
I personally feel a binary only distribution will be very helpful which
does not need any of the build time tool chain such a Ant, Maven or SVN to pull the sources. It should be like any other standard distribution of Tomcat, Geronimo or any other application. Extending the existing ant scripts or using Maven can help us create a binary release. It should be one click process to install (using installer) for Windows and single command line like "tar -xvzf apache-ofbiz-x.xx.tar.gz. Thanks, Raj Christopher Snow wrote: > From the work I have done on creating an Eclipse application, I quite > like the OSGi plugin concept. OSGi may help ofbiz in areas like > dependency management and hot upgrades. Maven 2 would be suitable as > the build tool. > > There is a lot to learn about OSGi first though... > >> Please feel free to put a design or prototype together :o) >> Though discussing it before avoids disillusions... So what is your >> idea, Maven 2 ? >> >> Jacques >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
I would like to get involved on the development prototype for Maven
integration. I've worked with it in a few projects and I love it so much. But to be realistic I need more time to improve my knwoledge of the entire framework and Maven too in order to do a good work. I don't want to start the house from the roof but in the near future will be a pleasure support this initiative. BTW, thanks Jacques, the diagram you sent before clarifies a lot the structure of Ofbiz and how the components are related to each other. I see a possible approach of Maven integration like this: Core: It include only the low-level layer. This would be perfect for people who wants the strenght of Ofbiz to develop other kinds of app's not related with an ERP. It can compete with the most common webapp frameworks pushed together. I'm talking about struts - spring(ioc) - Hibernate. It will mean more persons interested on the Ofbiz framework, so much more supporters and possible clients. Core + base applications: The ERP solution. Core + [base applications] + specialpurpose: Ecommerce, CMS, CRM, Workflow, etc solutions. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
Hi Chris,
I have created a prototype integration of OFBiz and OSGI at source (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/). This runs OFBiz as a framework inside a OSGi Kernal. As of now it loads framework as well as application. I have tested the service engine and entity engine and both works fine in OSGi environment. Web applications are not integrated and deployed in this prototype however, it should not be difficult to do so. If you want to use the OFBiz as a framework to develop your own applications using technologies such as JSF, Struts, Spring Web or Eclipse RAP, you can use the OFBiz/OSGi very well. without carrying the baggage of other OFBiz web applications. Thanks, Raj Christopher Snow wrote: > From the work I have done on creating an Eclipse application, I quite > like the OSGi plugin concept. OSGi may help ofbiz in areas like > dependency management and hot upgrades. Maven 2 would be suitable as > the build tool. > > There is a lot to learn about OSGi first though... > >> Please feel free to put a design or prototype together :o) >> Though discussing it before avoids disillusions... So what is your >> idea, Maven 2 ? >> >> Jacques >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
Hi Chris:
IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is time for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests here. This sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look what that spawned :-) Ruth Christopher Snow wrote: > Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach. > > Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting > together? > > BJ Freeman wrote: >> I had the same complaint at one time. >> I now keep my own version under a different brand name. >> That is about all you can do. >> >> >> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM: >> >>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> >>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place >>>>> even though they are not used. Does leaving unused components in >>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components >>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some of the >>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space. >>>>> >>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays... >>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email. >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>>> >>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it >>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with >>> lightweight applications like OpenERP. >>> >>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't >>> required. >>> >>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in >>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model. >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by rajsaini
Hi Raj, this sounds great! Was there any interest from the ofbiz community?
Raj Saini wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I have created a prototype integration of OFBiz and OSGI at source > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/). This runs OFBiz as a > framework inside a OSGi Kernal. As of now it loads framework as well > as application. I have tested the service engine and entity engine and > both works fine in OSGi environment. Web applications are not > integrated and deployed in this prototype however, it should not be > difficult to do so. > > If you want to use the OFBiz as a framework to develop your own > applications using technologies such as JSF, Struts, Spring Web or > Eclipse RAP, you can use the OFBiz/OSGi very well. without carrying > the baggage of other OFBiz web applications. > > Thanks, > > Raj > > > Christopher Snow wrote: >> From the work I have done on creating an Eclipse application, I quite >> like the OSGi plugin concept. OSGi may help ofbiz in areas like >> dependency management and hot upgrades. Maven 2 would be suitable as >> the build tool. >> >> There is a lot to learn about OSGi first though... >> >>> Please feel free to put a design or prototype together :o) >>> Though discussing it before avoids disillusions... So what is your >>> idea, Maven 2 ? >>> >>> Jacques >>> >> >> > |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by rajsaini
Hi Raj,
I wonder why, if this uses OFBiz only, the doc is at http://opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Ofbiz-osgi-prototype and there is nothing in official Apache OFBiz documentation (wiki) ? Is there any reasons ? Thanks Jacques From: "Raj Saini" <[hidden email]> > Hi Chris, > > I have created a prototype integration of OFBiz and OSGI at source > (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/). This runs OFBiz as a > framework inside a OSGi Kernal. As of now it loads framework as well as > application. I have tested the service engine and entity engine and both > works fine in OSGi environment. Web applications are not integrated and > deployed in this prototype however, it should not be difficult to do so. > > If you want to use the OFBiz as a framework to develop your own > applications using technologies such as JSF, Struts, Spring Web or > Eclipse RAP, you can use the OFBiz/OSGi very well. without carrying the > baggage of other OFBiz web applications. > > Thanks, > > Raj > > > Christopher Snow wrote: >> From the work I have done on creating an Eclipse application, I quite >> like the OSGi plugin concept. OSGi may help ofbiz in areas like >> dependency management and hot upgrades. Maven 2 would be suitable as >> the build tool. >> >> There is a lot to learn about OSGi first though... >> >>> Please feel free to put a design or prototype together :o) >>> Though discussing it before avoids disillusions... So what is your >>> idea, Maven 2 ? >>> >>> Jacques >>> >> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
No, not so far.
Christopher Snow wrote: > Hi Raj, this sounds great! Was there any interest from the ofbiz > community? > > Raj Saini wrote: >> Hi Chris, >> >> I have created a prototype integration of OFBiz and OSGI at source >> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/). This runs OFBiz as a >> framework inside a OSGi Kernal. As of now it loads framework as well >> as application. I have tested the service engine and entity engine >> and both works fine in OSGi environment. Web applications are not >> integrated and deployed in this prototype however, it should not be >> difficult to do so. >> >> If you want to use the OFBiz as a framework to develop your own >> applications using technologies such as JSF, Struts, Spring Web or >> Eclipse RAP, you can use the OFBiz/OSGi very well. without carrying >> the baggage of other OFBiz web applications. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Raj >> >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >>> From the work I have done on creating an Eclipse application, I >>> quite like the OSGi plugin concept. OSGi may help ofbiz in areas >>> like dependency management and hot upgrades. Maven 2 would be >>> suitable as the build tool. >>> >>> There is a lot to learn about OSGi first though... >>> >>>> Please feel free to put a design or prototype together :o) >>>> Though discussing it before avoids disillusions... So what is your >>>> idea, Maven 2 ? >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>> >>> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2
On Nov 13, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote:
> Hi Chris: > > IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is time for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests here. Uh... I am missing your point now: what are the competing interests that you are mentioning? I don't see any competing interest in this thread. > This sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look what that spawned :-) Yes, it could become the Linux equivalent for the OFBiz world... or it could become one of the many thousands of forks (the 99%) in the history of software projects that just are ignored. Jacopo > > Ruth > > Christopher Snow wrote: >> Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach. >> >> Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting together? >> >> BJ Freeman wrote: >>> I had the same complaint at one time. >>> I now keep my own version under a different brand name. >>> That is about all you can do. >>> >>> >>> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM: >>> >>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place >>>>>> even though they are not used. Does leaving unused components in >>>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components >>>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some of the >>>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space. >>>>>> >>>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays... >>>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email. >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it >>>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with >>>> lightweight applications like OpenERP. >>>> >>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't >>>> required. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in >>>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacques Le Roux
Hi Jacques,
Opentap guy has helped in creating the documentation as they are planing to use it for their product. I had created the prototype to develop OFBiz based application for our own products. Integration project itself is Apache 2.0 licensed and does not use any code form Opentaps. It does use binaries from Eclipse Equinox and other dependencies used by OFBiz but converted to OSGi bundles instead of plain jars. I put a word about it in mailing list. I there is a community interest, I can certainly create a page on Wiki. Thanks, Raj Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Hi Raj, > > I wonder why, if this uses OFBiz only, the doc is at > http://opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Ofbiz-osgi-prototype > and there is nothing in official Apache OFBiz documentation (wiki) ? > Is there any reasons ? > > Thanks > > Jacques > > From: "Raj Saini" <[hidden email]> >> Hi Chris, >> >> I have created a prototype integration of OFBiz and OSGI at source >> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/). This runs OFBiz as a >> framework inside a OSGi Kernal. As of now it loads framework as well >> as application. I have tested the service engine and entity engine >> and both works fine in OSGi environment. Web applications are not >> integrated and deployed in this prototype however, it should not be >> difficult to do so. >> >> If you want to use the OFBiz as a framework to develop your own >> applications using technologies such as JSF, Struts, Spring Web or >> Eclipse RAP, you can use the OFBiz/OSGi very well. without carrying >> the baggage of other OFBiz web applications. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Raj >> >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >>> From the work I have done on creating an Eclipse application, I >>> quite like the OSGi plugin concept. OSGi may help ofbiz in areas >>> like dependency management and hot upgrades. Maven 2 would be >>> suitable as the build tool. >>> >>> There is a lot to learn about OSGi first though... >>> >>>> Please feel free to put a design or prototype together :o) >>>> Though discussing it before avoids disillusions... So what is your >>>> idea, Maven 2 ? >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> >>> >>> >> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
Hi Jacopo,
This is my understanding of the conflict in interest: 1) Ofbiz as an ecommerce focused application with ERP that is developed on top of unstable trunk and kept updated via svn and patches. versus 2) Ofbiz as a stable shrink wrapped ERP application that has professional releases and smooth updates (e.g. for security). Also, the separation of Ofbiz as a standalone modular development platform with add on ERP modules. Cheers, Chris Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > On Nov 13, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: > > >> Hi Chris: >> >> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is time for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests here. >> > > Uh... I am missing your point now: what are the competing interests that you are mentioning? I don't see any competing interest in this thread. > > >> This sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look what that spawned :-) >> > > Yes, it could become the Linux equivalent for the OFBiz world... or it could become one of the many thousands of forks (the 99%) in the history of software projects that just are ignored. > > Jacopo > > >> Ruth >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >> >>> Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach. >>> >>> Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting together? >>> >>> BJ Freeman wrote: >>> >>>> I had the same complaint at one time. >>>> I now keep my own version under a different brand name. >>>> That is about all you can do. >>>> >>>> >>>> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place >>>>>>> even though they are not used. Does leaving unused components in >>>>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components >>>>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some of the >>>>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays... >>>>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it >>>>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with >>>>> lightweight applications like OpenERP. >>>>> >>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't >>>>> required. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in >>>>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ruth Hoffman-2
hi Ruth,
I do agree with you that it is time for a fork in the road. But before that, maybe it is better to split ofbiz into subprojects, like framework, BI, etc. Then we can choose where to fork. And also the future merge should be easier. -- Regards, Michael Xu (xudong) www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Chris: > > IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is time > for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests here. This > sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look what > that spawned :-) > > Ruth > > > Christopher Snow wrote: > >> Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach. >> >> Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting >> together? >> >> BJ Freeman wrote: >> >>> I had the same complaint at one time. >>> I now keep my own version under a different brand name. >>> That is about all you can do. >>> >>> >>> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM: >>> >>> >>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place >>>>>> even though they are not used. Does leaving unused components in >>>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components >>>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some of the >>>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays... >>>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email. >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it >>>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with >>>> lightweight applications like OpenERP. >>>> >>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't >>>> required. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in >>>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> |
|
|
I do not think OFBiz fork would be a best think to do in the interest f
community. However, idea of a next generation OFBiz (OFBiz-NG) keep coming to mind. That was the one of the reason I worked on OFBiz-OSGi integration. OFBiz with a micro kernel based on OFBiz and then other building blocks such as Entity Engine, Service Engine, deployed as pluggable bundles and then who knows some time in the future OFBiz-NG gains focus of the community. This is how Firefox (the lean and thin) has evolved form Mozilla (the beast). Raj Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: > hi Ruth, > > I do agree with you that it is time for a fork in the road. But before that, > maybe it is better to split ofbiz into subprojects, like framework, BI, etc. > Then we can choose where to fork. And also the future merge should be > easier. > > -- > Regards, > Michael Xu (xudong) > www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 > 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> Hi Chris: >> >> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is time >> for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests here. This >> sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look what >> that spawned :-) >> >> Ruth >> >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >> >> >>> Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach. >>> >>> Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting >>> together? >>> >>> BJ Freeman wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I had the same complaint at one time. >>>> I now keep my own version under a different brand name. >>>> That is about all you can do. >>>> >>>> >>>> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place >>>>>>> even though they are not used. Does leaving unused components in >>>>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components >>>>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some of the >>>>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays... >>>>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it >>>>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with >>>>> lightweight applications like OpenERP. >>>>> >>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't >>>>> required. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in >>>>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Xu (xudong)
That makes a lot of sense.
Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: > hi Ruth, > > I do agree with you that it is time for a fork in the road. But before that, > maybe it is better to split ofbiz into subprojects, like framework, BI, etc. > Then we can choose where to fork. And also the future merge should be > easier. > > -- > Regards, > Michael Xu (xudong) > www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 > 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> Hi Chris: >> >> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is time >> for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests here. This >> sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look what >> that spawned :-) >> >> Ruth >> >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >> >> >>> Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach. >>> >>> Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting >>> together? >>> >>> BJ Freeman wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I had the same complaint at one time. >>>> I now keep my own version under a different brand name. >>>> That is about all you can do. >>>> >>>> >>>> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place >>>>>>> even though they are not used. Does leaving unused components in >>>>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components >>>>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some of the >>>>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays... >>>>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it >>>>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with >>>>> lightweight applications like OpenERP. >>>>> >>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't >>>>> required. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in >>>>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by rajsaini
Hi Raj,
Sure a wiki page would be wecolme, and without any doubts, I will I will put a link from the FAQ! Thanks Jacques From: "Raj Saini" <[hidden email]> > Hi Jacques, > > Opentap guy has helped in creating the documentation as they are planing > to use it for their product. I had created the prototype to develop > OFBiz based application for our own products. Integration project itself > is Apache 2.0 licensed and does not use any code form Opentaps. It does > use binaries from Eclipse Equinox and other dependencies used by OFBiz > but converted to OSGi bundles instead of plain jars. > > I put a word about it in mailing list. I there is a community interest, > I can certainly create a page on Wiki. > > Thanks, > > Raj > > Jacques Le Roux wrote: >> Hi Raj, >> >> I wonder why, if this uses OFBiz only, the doc is at >> http://opentaps.org/docs/index.php/Ofbiz-osgi-prototype >> and there is nothing in official Apache OFBiz documentation (wiki) ? >> Is there any reasons ? >> >> Thanks >> >> Jacques >> >> From: "Raj Saini" <[hidden email]> >>> Hi Chris, >>> >>> I have created a prototype integration of OFBiz and OSGI at source >>> (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ofbiz-osgi/). This runs OFBiz as a >>> framework inside a OSGi Kernal. As of now it loads framework as well >>> as application. I have tested the service engine and entity engine >>> and both works fine in OSGi environment. Web applications are not >>> integrated and deployed in this prototype however, it should not be >>> difficult to do so. >>> >>> If you want to use the OFBiz as a framework to develop your own >>> applications using technologies such as JSF, Struts, Spring Web or >>> Eclipse RAP, you can use the OFBiz/OSGi very well. without carrying >>> the baggage of other OFBiz web applications. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Raj >>> >>> >>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>>> From the work I have done on creating an Eclipse application, I >>>> quite like the OSGi plugin concept. OSGi may help ofbiz in areas >>>> like dependency management and hot upgrades. Maven 2 would be >>>> suitable as the build tool. >>>> >>>> There is a lot to learn about OSGi first though... >>>> >>>>> Please feel free to put a design or prototype together :o) >>>>> Though discussing it before avoids disillusions... So what is your >>>>> idea, Maven 2 ? >>>>> >>>>> Jacques >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: > Hi Jacopo, > > This is my understanding of the conflict in interest: > > 1) Ofbiz as an ecommerce focused application with ERP that is developed on top of unstable trunk and kept updated via svn and patches. > > versus > > 2) Ofbiz as a stable shrink wrapped ERP application that has professional releases and smooth updates (e.g. for security). Also, the separation of Ofbiz as a standalone modular development platform with add on ERP modules. Are you saying that the I am a supporter of #1? No, this is not true, and this is not what OFBiz is. Again, I think that you don't read with enough attention the emails or that you don't think enough before sending your reply. I would suggest you to spend more time studying instead of throwing out wrong and misleading assertions. What you are saying is simply not real. Jacopo > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> On Nov 13, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Chris: >>> >>> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is time for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests here. >>> >> >> Uh... I am missing your point now: what are the competing interests that you are mentioning? I don't see any competing interest in this thread. >> >> >>> This sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look what that spawned :-) >>> >> >> Yes, it could become the Linux equivalent for the OFBiz world... or it could become one of the many thousands of forks (the 99%) in the history of software projects that just are ignored. >> >> Jacopo >> >> >>> Ruth >>> >>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach. >>>> >>>> Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting together? >>>> >>>> BJ Freeman wrote: >>>> >>>>> I had the same complaint at one time. >>>>> I now keep my own version under a different brand name. >>>>> That is about all you can do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place >>>>>>>> even though they are not used. Does leaving unused components in >>>>>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components >>>>>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some of the >>>>>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays... >>>>>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>> >>>>>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it >>>>>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with >>>>>> lightweight applications like OpenERP. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't >>>>>> required. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in >>>>>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> > |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Michael Xu (xudong)
Remember though that OFBiz has begun and stay as an ERP project...
I prefer by far Raj's intentions Jacques From: "Michael Xu (xudong)" <[hidden email]> > hi Ruth, > > I do agree with you that it is time for a fork in the road. But before that, > maybe it is better to split ofbiz into subprojects, like framework, BI, etc. > Then we can choose where to fork. And also the future merge should be > easier. > > -- > Regards, > Michael Xu (xudong) > www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 > 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi Chris: >> >> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is time >> for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests here. This >> sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look what >> that spawned :-) >> >> Ruth >> >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >> >>> Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach. >>> >>> Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting >>> together? >>> >>> BJ Freeman wrote: >>> >>>> I had the same complaint at one time. >>>> I now keep my own version under a different brand name. >>>> That is about all you can do. >>>> >>>> >>>> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place >>>>>>> even though they are not used. Does leaving unused components in >>>>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components >>>>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some of the >>>>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays... >>>>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it >>>>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with >>>>> lightweight applications like OpenERP. >>>>> >>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't >>>>> required. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in >>>>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> > |
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Chris Snow-3
Here is the release plan so far
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBADMIN/Release+Plan Jacques From: "Christopher Snow" <[hidden email]> > Hi Jacopo, > > This is my understanding of the conflict in interest: > > 1) Ofbiz as an ecommerce focused application with ERP that is developed on top of unstable trunk and kept updated via svn and > patches. > > versus > > 2) Ofbiz as a stable shrink wrapped ERP application that has professional releases and smooth updates (e.g. for security). Also, > the separation of Ofbiz as a standalone modular development platform with add on ERP modules. > > Cheers, > > Chris > > Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> On Nov 13, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Chris: >>> >>> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is time for a fork in the road. There are too many competing >>> interests here. >>> >> >> Uh... I am missing your point now: what are the competing interests that you are mentioning? I don't see any competing interest >> in this thread. >> >> >>> This sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look what that spawned :-) >>> >> >> Yes, it could become the Linux equivalent for the OFBiz world... or it could become one of the many thousands of forks (the 99%) >> in the history of software projects that just are ignored. >> >> Jacopo >> >> >>> Ruth >>> >>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach. >>>> >>>> Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting together? >>>> >>>> BJ Freeman wrote: >>>> >>>>> I had the same complaint at one time. >>>>> I now keep my own version under a different brand name. >>>>> That is about all you can do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place >>>>>>>> even though they are not used. Does leaving unused components in >>>>>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components >>>>>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some of the >>>>>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays... >>>>>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>> >>>>>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it >>>>>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with >>>>>> lightweight applications like OpenERP. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't >>>>>> required. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in >>>>>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Michael Xu (xudong)
Michael,
why do you think it is time for a fork? It seems to me a crazy conversation... Jacopo On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: > hi Ruth, > > I do agree with you that it is time for a fork in the road. But before that, > maybe it is better to split ofbiz into subprojects, like framework, BI, etc. > Then we can choose where to fork. And also the future merge should be > easier. > > -- > Regards, > Michael Xu (xudong) > www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 0135 > 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi Chris: >> >> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is time >> for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests here. This >> sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look what >> that spawned :-) >> >> Ruth >> >> >> Christopher Snow wrote: >> >>> Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach. >>> >>> Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting >>> together? >>> >>> BJ Freeman wrote: >>> >>>> I had the same complaint at one time. >>>> I now keep my own version under a different brand name. >>>> That is about all you can do. >>>> >>>> >>>> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in place >>>>>>> even though they are not used. Does leaving unused components in >>>>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components >>>>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some of the >>>>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays... >>>>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see it >>>>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with >>>>> lightweight applications like OpenERP. >>>>> >>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't >>>>> required. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People in >>>>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business model. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> |
|
It smells the same syndrome that Neogia 5 years ago ;)
Nicolas > Michael, > > why do you think it is time for a fork? It seems to me a crazy > conversation... > > Jacopo > > On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) wrote: > >> hi Ruth, >> >> I do agree with you that it is time for a fork in the road. But before >> that, >> maybe it is better to split ofbiz into subprojects, like framework, BI, >> etc. >> Then we can choose where to fork. And also the future merge should be >> easier. >> >> -- >> Regards, >> Michael Xu (xudong) >> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86) 135 >> 0135 >> 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096 >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Chris: >>> >>> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it is >>> time >>> for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests here. >>> This >>> sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And look >>> what >>> that spawned :-) >>> >>> Ruth >>> >>> >>> Christopher Snow wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach. >>>> >>>> Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting >>>> together? >>>> >>>> BJ Freeman wrote: >>>> >>>>> I had the same complaint at one time. >>>>> I now keep my own version under a different brand name. >>>>> That is about all you can do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components in >>>>>>>> place >>>>>>>> even though they are not used. Does leaving unused components in >>>>>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz? Do those components >>>>>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space. Some of >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays... >>>>>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't see >>>>>> it >>>>>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with >>>>>> lightweight applications like OpenERP. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that isn't >>>>>> required. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option! People >>>>>> in >>>>>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business >>>>>> model. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jacopo Cappellato-4
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Christopher Snow wrote: > > >> Hi Jacopo, >> >> This is my understanding of the conflict in interest: >> >> 1) Ofbiz as an ecommerce focused application with ERP that is developed on top of unstable trunk and kept updated via svn and patches. >> >> versus >> >> 2) Ofbiz as a stable shrink wrapped ERP application that has professional releases and smooth updates (e.g. for security). Also, the separation of Ofbiz as a standalone modular development platform with add on ERP modules. >> > > Are you saying that the I am a supporter of #1? No, this is not true, and this is not what OFBiz is. Again, I think that you don't read with enough attention the emails or that you don't think enough before sending your reply. I would suggest you to spend more time studying instead of throwing out wrong and misleading assertions. What you are saying is simply not real. > > Jacopo > > Sorry - I wasn't aiming the above comment at you. It was based on advice I have been given in the past on the mailing list, and on my understanding of current work practices. Cheers, Chris |
«
Return to OFBiz - User
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |